Eh I just like training in different environments and "scenarios" that I'll likely face as well as the standard "sport" (for lack of a better word) ones while focusing on applying my core "game" in each situation just with modifications. I feel that is a good way to learn how to adapt quick to varying conditions. Of course coming from a more of a military mindset, and considering I'll probably go into Law enforcement, it makes some sense. Plus I have the free time at the moment. When I was approaching my training that way a couple years ago I felt I was overall somewhat better (lately it's been mostly mma style training, when I can find partners).For me it's like krav maga meets MMA. I think most RBSD programs have some good ideas but are pretty shaky on the fundamentals or their "game".

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

Okay so I've been working on my 1 hand neck clinch...gotta admit not to shabby. Really opens up the for KNE's and the transitions aren't so difficult to learn. Practice is killer on the neck though, even more so than the thai clinch.

So the subject today is dirty tricks. The R.A.T system places an emphasis on eyes, throat, and groin attacks. The reason Vunaks gives is that anyone can be a good boxer, good kick boxer, wrestler, jiu-jitsu practitioner so and so worth. no matter how much you train there will always be someone better. Using these dirty tricks allows you to borrow those small moments of pain that incapacitates the attacker in order for you to easily take control.

This is yet another example of why he blended kino mutai with bjj. I can be an exceptional grappler, but there could always be one just as good out there or better. And if I need to defeat this guy in a hurry, isn't it best for me to apply my most deadliest attacks in order to get through this guy? In order for me to get away, or go after the next guy?

A reminder kino mutai would be the art of un-interrupted biting and eye gouging. Vu says whats required is a good base and the understanding of grips. Also the kind of bites and the best places to bite. The approach depending on your position is to bite your attacker, without him being able to bite you. The idea being that once you begin to knaw on your opponents flesh, he will instantly want to pull away. Here is where your grips are applied, this keeps him from pull back and ending your bite. Three to eight seconds later when you release the grip and the bite, your opponent will pull back and you can then stand on your feet or continue to a dominant position.

Also another question. I've been looking at youtube videos of JKD guys. What up with all the Bruce Lee imitators. Is it me or does everyone strike, traps, strike, trap. Every youtube I see the instructor is back handing and covering just incase he may or may not have to trap Its like reference point fighting 101. It's like they seen Bruce's movies and assume that pac sao is a mandatory part of the attack. And not one of these guys clinch...ever.

Also I got some questions regarding Matt Thorton and Paul Vunak in terms of how they approach street fighting. I have Thrtnons FJKD2-3 series. Haven't gotten around to watching them because it seems like is more jiu-jitsu. I've only checked him out on youtube though, he doesn't emphasize those dirty tricks I was talking about above. Seems to me he is more about competition.

Okay so I've been working on my 1 hand neck clinch.............Practice is killer on the neck though, even more so than the thai clinch.

Killer as in, its tough on stamina, or did you mean in another way? Keep your neck stiff and bring your shoulders up some to make your neck like a turtle. You will probably see that its tougher to keep a neck tie that way or for your partner to keep one on you. You then have to adjust the angle. Many people will tell you that you have to avoid a squared up stance directly in front of you, saying it's better to create an angle. And you definitely want to do that. However, if you have a good neck tie and “crank” it properly, you can stand more in front of him with less “risk”. Just be busy with your free hand. Standing square with your opponent ear to ear is considered bad wrestling. Of course, uppercuts to the face would be considered bad wrestling as well, lol. Developing a good neck tie definitely takes time. Learning the feel, making refinements in control and all isn't something you do over a weekend obviously. With practice, you'll start to really polish that position to where you feel comfortable.

Quote:

So the subject today is dirty tricks. The R.A.T system places an emphasis on eyes, throat, and groin attacks. The reason Vunak gives is that anyone can be a good boxer, good kick boxer, wrestler, jiu-jitsu practitioner so and so worth. no matter how much you train there will always be someone better. Using these dirty tricks allows you to borrow those small moments of pain that incapacitates the attacker in order for you to easily take control.

I follow the line of reasoning, but there's something we should try and flesh out a bit. If we work here from the perspective that our opponent is simply "better" than we are, then it follows that no tactics we have are working for us. This will take some explaining perhaps. Using only logic here; if our opponent is that much better, are tactics are going to fall short regardless of whether they are "dirty" or not. "Dirt", just like any other, "clean" technique, requires skill in application -- skill that is based on delivery systems. If you have weapons, they must always spring forth by way of some delivery system. THAT is the main message that I've been speaking of for years on this forum. The delivery system is more important than the tactics used.

Think of it like this; tactics are like bullets, delivery systems are guns. Without a good gun (delivery system), you might as well be just picking up bullets and throwing them at an opponent. Foul/tactics or dirty tactics are no different than any OTHER tactic when looked at from that perspective. There must always be a sound delivery system in place from which to execute ANY tactic, "dirty" or otherwise.

That said, it then doesn't matter what tactics/techniques you use. Powerful tactics backed up by solid execution (skill in delivery systems) are going to be effective. Some may use the eye jab, some may prefer a boxing jab. Both have their respective places (and times). In the end, it's about what you and I can actually do that matters.

One last point....if a person is better (better delivery system), foul tactics aren't going to even the playing field, in my opinion. That seems to be the primary implication being made by certain groups (and again, I am a PFS instructor) The notion is that somehow, foul tactics/dirty fighting evens the score against "more skilled" individuals. The thing is, those individuals are more skilled for a reason. They will actually have the better platform for applying foul tactics than the less skilled individual, again, just as with any other technique. I think this is common sense.

I think needs to be addressed is the use of foul tactics in their appropriate places and what our primary objectives should be for them. When/where/why/how. Again, I'm not against their use. I just believe we need to be completely honest in any of these discussions in an attempt to bring the truth (in combat) out in the open.

Quote:

This is yet another example of why he blended kino mutai with bjj. I can be an exceptional grappler, but there could always be one just as good out there or better. And if I need to defeat this guy in a hurry, isn't it best for me to apply my most deadliest attacks in order to get through this guy? In order for me to get away, or go after the next guy?

I would only say that, if your opponent is a better grappler (ie, a more well-developed delivery system), the point here is virtually moot. We have to create hypothetical situations to illustrate the point. Thus, if I happened to run into a superior grappler, what exactly does that mean? What situations will arise when this occurs? For instance, how will I know when I have managed to encounter a superior grappler? Probably because he managed to take me down, right? If he was able to take me down, its probably safe to assume that he's in a dominant position. From that perspective, I probably won't be able to bite or eye gouge effectively, whereas my opponent would be able to (particularly if I attempted to do so, reminding him of what he could do to me). In this situation, we need a functional ground fighting delivery system in order to be able to escape and regain our footing.

Or....perhaps we've encountered someone who is a better grappler, but hasn't managed to take us down yet. In this case, we could use good footwork and the lead jab to create distance and keep him away. This is exactly what I would do in just about ANY self-defense situation. Here I think the boxing jab is better than the eye jab because it has more on it. The larger striking surface means less chance of missing the intended target (which becomes larger itself by default).

Now I understand the points about foul tactics (and believe me, I've seen Vunak demonstrate this as well as his top instructors) and again, I'm not saying that these have no utility. Without skill in application and from a functional delivery system, they're useless as would be any other tactic. You may get the feeling that I'm against them because of everything I've been saying, but that isn't the case at all. I'm just big on the development of skill in the core fundamentals (they're fundamental for a reason).

Quote:

A reminder kino mutai would be the art of un-interrupted biting and eye gouging. Vu says whats required is a good base and the understanding of grips. Also the kind of bites and the best places to bite. The approach depending on your position is to bite your attacker, without him being able to bite you. The idea being that once you begin to knaw on your opponents flesh, he will instantly want to pull away. Here is where your grips are applied, this keeps him from pull back and ending your bite. Three to eight seconds later when you release the grip and the bite, your opponent will pull back and you can then stand on your feet or continue to a dominant position.

One thing about it however, is that to DO so requires skill. More skill in fact than your attacker. It takes skill to get into these positions. Basic skill, but skill nonetheless. But to be honest, I'm not all that into biting people. I can't think of one situation in which biting would be an attractive option. Not one. I don't care if I'm lying under someone. I mean, if that's the case, there's a reason I'm there...and that's because they're better than me. I'm loathe to bite folks better than me when I'm in inferior positions. Besides, I don't want some guy's blood in my mouth.

Quote:

Also another question. I've been looking at youtube videos of JKD guys. What up with all the Bruce Lee imitators. Is it me or does everyone strike, traps, strike, trap. Every youtube I see the instructor is back handing and covering just incase he may or may not have to trap Its like reference point fighting 101. It's like they seen Bruce's movies and assume that pac sao is a mandatory part of the attack. And not one of these guys clinch...ever.

[censored] like that really shows a lack of actual resistance in training, more or less. Much of what I've seen guys do (and have done myself way back) never comes out in any actual sparring (against functional people). And by resistance, I don't mean negative resistance, but positive resistance. The resistance and intensity can be the same in both cases (positive or negative, but there is a general helpful attitude with positive resistance in training. It's team oriented and builds the tribe instead of demolishing it. Big difference, imo.

Quote:

Also I got some questions regarding Matt Thornton and Paul Vunak in terms of how they approach street fighting. I have Thrtnons FJKD2-3 series. Haven't gotten around to watching them because it seems like is more jiu-jitsu. I've only checked him out on youtube though, he doesn't emphasize those dirty tricks I was talking about above. Seems to me he is more about competition.

A word about the SBG series. The FJKD series 1 was great for what it was. I still think its great. I have it on VHS and am looking for the DVD format at some point (though that would be going "backward"). FJKD2was/is great. Another step forward and demonstrated the basic delivery systems and what folks needed to know for each; particularly with regard to the clinch and ground disks. FJKD3 was more along the lines of the delivery systems with regard to the art of BJJ and vale tudo. In some ways, you could make a case that the third set (and in some ways, the second as well) was geared more toward the competitive side.

That said, Thornton has always maintained that it is through the sportive approach, that the delivery systems are built. The delivery systems are those things which make us functional as fighters, for sport OR self-defense. Lets not forget that true self-defense is far and away easier than sport fighting!

And I say its easier in terms of execution and application. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the higher stakes involved in street fighting (obviously the stakes are always higher in a self-defense situation). However, those fights are typically FAR "easier". And that's the benefit of such training.

A few more points.

To reiterate, I'm not against foul tactics. I'm for skill. I'm not for grappling in every situation. I'm for taking any fight into an area where I have an advantage that my opponent does not have. Real fights can involve weapons and multiple attackers. Sport fights do not. Thus I mind my p's and q's when I'm out and about. I make friends, not enemies. I'd rather buy someone a beer than break a bottle of beer over his head. Life is easier that way. I pick my battles carefully, choosing to win the war overall (isn't the objective of war, eventual peace, after all is said and done?).

So, I train the three core, delivery systems (stand-up/clinch/ground). Thus I'm boxing, wrestling in the clinch and grappling on the ground. The very act of training runs contrary to self-defense (which is about avoiding conflict and escape when possible), but that's the paradox isn't it? I know the better I get at fighting, the better I will become at self-defense. I think that makes perfect sense, but it isn't necessarily a given (case in point being, Alex Gong, a great fighter who apparently had horribly instincts for self-preservation).

You know, I don't know if this post answered any questions. If so, great. But I think the point is more about keeping the conversation going. Doing that will eventually yield a deeper understanding of what we're both talking about. So keep it going!

Im fairly new to clinch work too and,yea its can be a killer on the neck, I find it too.I hate my neck being ''jerked'' over and over.A great thing to do but not receive.I was given a tip to use a towel to do pull ups with as it gives you a similar grip and positioning to how you would be clinching and gets you into the idea to not just pull with your arms but hang off their neck using your body weight.

Anyone got any good sensible neck strengthening excersises that wont kill the neck later in life?I guess the best conditioning is actualy doing the clinching though there isnt always a person about to work with.

Is the single neck a tactic best used for just adding the striking side eg dirty boxing, or can it also lead well to other things like a takedown?

I was told to kind of resemble a gorilla haha.This positioning helping to facilitate the idea of hanging off the neck and not just pulling with the arms as well as helping other things I cant remember well at the minute...Body slightly curved ,shoulders turtled necked, keeping on the toes.Always ready to move or burst into a seperation and pull and knee.To try to be the contoller of the seperation.Kind of hard to explain....but the over all tip was think gorilla.Not fixed in the position as things change in seconds and nothings still....just generaly gorilla.Turtles and gorillas.The zoo forums that way>Maybe im thinking of the pummeling.

_________________________
I point my saxaphone at the rare Booted Gorilla.

Quote:Im fairly new to clinch work too and,yea its can be a killer on the neck, I find it too.I hate my neck being ''jerked'' over and over.A great thing to do but not receive.I was given a tip to use a towel to do pull ups with as it gives you a similar grip and positioning to how you would be clinching and gets you into the idea to not just pull with your arms but hang off their neck using your body weight.

The best thing to do is keep good position. Kind of like how Vu tells folks folks to keep their neck stiff and look up when they are practicing headbutts. The thing to do is pull your neck in like a turtle and look straight ahead whenever someone grabs your neck.

Either that or if you are caught in bad position, don't resist so much straight backward. Besides that being a great set-up for a double leg, you'll just wear yourself down. Learn to counter it and you'll be out sooner (then you won't have to worry about it).

If you're training your partners, just don't resist backward that much. Stay "turtled" but relaxed, even if you're training them and are "broken down" slightly. It does get easier.

Quote:

Anyone got any good sensible neck strengthening excersises that wont kill the neck later in life?I guess the best conditioning is actualy doing the clinching though there isnt always a person about to work with.

You could get a neck harness that holds a dumbbell. Start light needless to say.

Quote:

Is the single neck a tactic best used for just adding the striking side eg dirty boxing, or can it also lead well to other things like a takedown?

It can definitely lead to takedowns. The "knee-pick" is a great one that can be had from there. Ankle picks, the double leg, snap-down to front headlock are all good from that position.

I will modify the position frequently by taking the neck tying hand and getting an underhook with my opposite, free arm. Then I join hands into a reverse headlock position (aka, "pinch" headlock) position. That's a great position for firing knees as well as hitting takedowns. You can hit a duck-under from there and have it lead straight into an arm triangle choke. One easy move from there is just to "twist" your opponent down. You have to step in deep between his feet from that position and simply take your neck tie elbow straight to the mat. Your body will be turning as you do to twist him down. It's quite effective.

You can create an angle and change level to hit the single and double leg takedowns. Much of what I do however works off more upper body/Greco-Roman wrestling where I believe the takedowns are "safer" (than having to change level and "shoot").

I believe that its well within reason to functionalize the "RAT" approach. So all of this stuff that I've been into since my PFS days has only reinforced the concept. Instead of disproving it and making all the PFS stuff seem like garbage, it definitely holds water from a conceptual point of view. I am still seeing applications all the time throughout training.

In fact, the RAT would be the difference between MMA for "sport" and MMA for "self-defense. Technically speaking, there isn't much difference. The main difference is one of strategy. I don't think Vunak would disagree with that at all.

I am sure I saw you write that being ear to ear is bad wrestling and was wondering you could clarify that and expand on it.I looked for which post it was in after some time but have lost it.I ask because I thought it was good to go to one side or the other to takedown go for a takedown and not go straight in the middle.Also I saw a whole DVD available by a Sambo guy on the 'Russian 2 on 1 'and know that STAB by Karl Tanswell from clips iv seen uses it.Iv done a bit on it and it seems an important thing to know.Any other good sources or tips and tactics on it?

Also do you know of Jim Mccann's material?Is it all it claims?I saw one being praised as the best 'street grappling' DVD.It had the usual 'beat street attacks and trained athlete' quotes.

Edited by matxtx (09/13/0805:54 PM)

_________________________
I point my saxaphone at the rare Booted Gorilla.

Quote:I am sure I saw you write that being ear to ear is bad wrestling and was wondering you could clarify that and expand on it.

Ear to ear is essentially a 50-50, neutral position. And while that happens a lot (and is going to happen), it's important to strive for a dominant position in the tie-up/clinch. This means that we should always try and establish dominant head position first. This means driving the head into the "pocket" (TMJ/jawline/neck). Its the same principle as a cross-face essentially. That helps to create a dominant angle in which ear to ear wrestling isn't going to do.

If you're tying up face to face, instead of going deeper into an ear to ear tie-up, you should be going forehead-to-forehead and working to drive into the pocket on one side, creating that superior angle. The forward pressure will assist that as well as possibly set up a snap-down situation.

The benefit of developing this skill (driving head position) is you learn to use your head as a weapon as well as another limb. In a real fight in close, this becomes your headbutt (though you're not "snapping" it) as well the dominant position enabler. Lets face it, real fights are all about superior angles and positions (angles being nothing but relative positions). Thus who controls position, controls a fight. Obviously then, who controls a fight is going to be one who (in most cases) "wins" the fight.

Quote:

I looked for which post it was in after some time but have lost it.I ask because I thought it was good to go to one side or the other to takedown go for a takedown and not go straight in the middle.

Yes. If I am going for a takedown, its always better for me if I can gain the angle to one side.

Quote:

Also I saw a whole DVD available by a Sambo guy on the 'Russian 2 on 1 'and know that STAB by Karl Tanswell from clips iv seen uses it.Iv done a bit on it and it seems an important thing to know.Any other good sources or tips and tactics on it?

The best thing to do is learn the fundamental mechanics of the 2 on 1, grab a partner and just practice moving him around with it. I swear to you, doing that for a year will answer more questions for you than virtually anything else. Just "playing the game" (regardless of what that game is) will do wonders for your ability.

I have been training a Greco-Roman approach for a few years now (though we allow leg attacks). Each passing year, the understanding deepens just because we are wrestling all the time. Do that too and you'll see results.

The 2 in 1 is a great tool for weapons work (counter-knife). There again comes the need to combine that with driving, dominant head position. The need for this is always important, though for counter-knife is critical. Play around enough with this and you'll see this reality for yourself.

Tanswell's stuff is great. So are the vids from Jerry Wetzel ("Red Zone"), which I would encourage anyone interested in seeing good counter-knife to look into.

Quote:

Also do you know of Jim Mccann's material?Is it all it claims?I saw one being praised as the best 'street grappling' DVD.It had the usual 'beat street attacks and trained athlete' quotes.

I have no experience with McCanns's stuff so I can't offer comment. Honestly, fundamentals are everything. Thats really all you need instruction on. Once you have those, a year of playing the games will have you not really needing to spend a lot of more "advanced" instruction.

John, what's your view on bobbing and weaving and fighting out of a crouch in the cotnext of mma? A lot of guys avoid doing that even though it works well in boxing, because of the possibility of knees or snap downs. I ike the tactic and I think it can give another way to enter the clinch but is it more dangerous than it's worth (I'm talking about bobbing and weaving a la Tyson or Dempsey)?

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

On another note, how does COunter Assault Tactics relate to Vunak's RAT? IS it jsut a knock off of RAT?

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

Quote:TEK, you understand the principles behind the RAT concept. Three core modes; interception, pressure and termination (hate using that word...I prefer the term "resolution").

So what's happening is that Voo was using eye jabs and destructions as his intercept..more or less, right? Then the straight blast as his pressure tactic. After that it was the double neck tie as his delivery system for knees, elbows and the headbutt.

Well, conceptually, none of that has changed really. What's been modified as some of the tactics for accomplishing each end.

Lets start with the intercepts. I don't like the long-range eye jab that Vunak LOVES. I do however like the elbow destruction and use it quite regularly to great effect in the gym. We've all felt it and it hurts, even through 16oz boxing gloves. The problem with teaching that to folks is, those are just "moves". That's a whole other issue beyond what we're trying to discuss presently.

I don't like the eye jab because there is nothing on it. Honestly, I would rather pop someone with a stiff jab than to "flick" an eye jab out. The jab has more on it. Taking a slight step forward into it can disrupt someone's timing, rhythm and footwork, etc. It's just more substantial. Ever walk right through someone's weak jab? People will. If a person doesn't have a jab worthy of respect, a person will walk straight through it. Flicking an eye jab out is weaker than the weakest jab if it doesn't land on the eyeball (which is a small target for a small weapon - in other words, it's hard to hit, particularly if your opponent is hitting you and otherwise has his guard/hands up as well). Thus I've thrown the eye jab out. Besides, eye jabs are easily thrown if you've been working your boxing jab any length of time. I would just rather have a credible, legitimate and verifiable technique (in terms of having seen it land and having seen the results in training). Thus, the jab is an even BETTER intercept as it accomplishes the same things in a better manner.

The "spike" (elbow destruction) is something that I've seen to work. With good timing and out of a boxing delivery system, that is something that I consider "high percentage" (which is the only thing I keep, everything else is thrown out).

So, from an interception point of view, having a decent boxing game is TEN times better than practicing eye jabs and destructions by themselves. If I had to put my money on someone in a fight, I would always put it on a boxer vs. some guy that has been practicing eye jabs. Just me.

The straight blast is "ok". I would personally rather use the modified "boxing blast", but I'm not going to completely throw out the straight blast altogether. The problem with that is again, that there is nothing on it, unless you can run into it full-bore. If you're using it to obtain the clinch, I think it's ok. My only opinion here is that the boxing blast is safer. You have to have more timing when using that because it's slower. But timing is an important attribute anyway and it's worth developing. Thats another reason why training delivery systems is important rather than just learning moves.

In terms of pressure (which the blast is designed to do), one can also use good boxing combinations to do the same thing. Pressure doesn't obviously have to always be "forward". Pressure can come by a disparity of skill and force. In other words, throw good tight combos in the face of someone who can't box and you'll see them fold up like a chair. Thats another form of pressure that comes from having functional delivery systems.

The "termination" stage is simply either chooing to disengage (pretty easily if you're outclassing someone, difficult if you're not) or choosing to "beat on them like they stole something" (to borrow a phrase). Whether that happens in the free movement range or happens in the clinch doesn't matter. But if we're talking about the clinch, I personally want to control at least one arm and the neck, as opposed to just the neck alone. I prefer to have an all-around clinch game rather than just the double neck tie. More options = mo' better.

All in all, it's still fundamentally the same - put some hurt on your opponent more than he does to you in ways which are simultaneously offensive and defensive, as the RAT was intended to be.

In regard to Erik Paulson, he develops "delivery systems" as opposed to just teaching someone a collection of moves. There's a difference. However, an armbar in MMA is an armbar on the street, or anywhere else. A punch is a punch. A shoulder lock is a shoulder lock. You have to have an athletic model of training these attacks and that's all he does. His fighters are more than capable of defending themselves because of his approach. It's hard to argue with athleticism, conditioning, experience and skill.

-John

Straight Blast Gym's "Crazy Monkey" boxing is a really awesome delivery system for elbow destructions. If you want to become really great at elbow destructions, then work a boxing corner drill at every training session utilizing the crazy monkey. Elbow destructions just kind of happen on their own from this structure. Great stuff!